Dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden...

Page 2 of 14 First 1234 ... Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by EESCHMan View Post
    "As far as the experts Strobel chose, he is, frankly, misleading about their qualifications. While he touts that all of the people he interviews are "doctorate-level", he doesn't mention that most of them are NOT doctorates in the fields they were interviewed! Rather, most of them have doctorates in philosophy or theology, and perhaps undergraduate degrees in a related science. But he is clearly leading the reader to believe he has picked doctorate-level experts in the fields they are being interviewed for, but, with a few exceptions, they are not. For each expert, Strobel spends at least a few paragraphs extolling the qualifications of his expert, while conveniently neglecting to mention that their doctorate is not in the field of discussion."

    That's what I call good science! (Not! in Borat Accent)
    Well, I will certainly investigate that and weigh that accordingly, nonetheless, facts are facts and just because you feel they lack the qualifications to state them does not preclude reality. I may not be qualified to change a tire, but if I do, it is nonetheless changed and can not be denied.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    lol, read it again! All your examples have a cause. they are all seeded or they wouldn't form smart guy. Thanks for providing even more evidence! Nothing can cause itself.
    "The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
    the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
    entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
    even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
    In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

    The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

    Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994)."

    "Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood."
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    Well, I will certainly investigate that and weigh that accordingly, nonetheless, facts are facts and just because you feel they lack the qualifications to state them does not preclude reality. I may not be qualified to change a tire, but if I do, it is nonetheless changed and can not be denied.
    Who would you rather do open heart surgery on you?
    a) Board Certified Surgeon of 20 years
    b) Joe Schmoe 1st year of med school

  4. Quote Originally Posted by jomi822 View Post
    the problem here is that 1 side is offering an answer, and the other isnt.

    scientists- not sure how the universe was created
    religious tards- god created it

    personally, i am MUCH more comfortable with the scientific lack of explanation than something that is simply made up in a book.

    btw there are dozens of creation stories...what makes the christian one correct???
    My goodness J, you indeed are qualified to speak on the issue of "tards" as you so elequently put it!

  5. Quote Originally Posted by EESCHMan View Post
    Who would you rather do open heart surgery on you?
    a) Board Certified Surgeon of 20 years
    b) Joe Schmoe 1st year of med school
    I would elect (C) the best man for the job! You can emphasize credentials and rightly so, but that can't be the whole basis of your argument. It's simply not always the case.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    My goodness J, you indeed are qualified to speak on the issue of "tards" as you so elequently put it!
    maybe you can teach me to "pulse" m1t while i get started on my tard write up

  7. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    I explained that too. Don't follow the church's opinion necessarily. Stop getting Truth and religion confused! God is God, no organization needed, period.
    So you don't have a "religion" you just follow your own drum?
    Truth meaning.....?

    FYI:
    "When the pope came to the subject of the scientific merits of evolution, it soon became clear how much things had changed in the nearly since the Vatican last addressed the issue. John Paul said:


    Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.


    Evolution, a doctrine that Pius XII only acknowledged as an unfortunate possibility, John Paul accepts forty-six years later “as an effectively proven fact.” (ROA, 82)"

  8. [QUOTE=jomi822;843032].

    scientists- not sure how the universe was created
    religious tards- god created it the maturity level is astounding.Being a biology major Id figure you would have something more appropriate to say than that.

    personally, i am MUCH more comfortable with the scientific lack of explanation (so you do have a faith system)than something that is simply made up in a book. like the theory of evolution?
    QUOTE]


    Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths . Proverbs 3:5-6

  9. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    I would elect (C) the best man for the job! You can emphasize credentials and rightly so, but that can't be the whole basis of your argument. It's simply not always the case.
    Which would be choice a)

    So you're going to believe those who don't specialize (or have extensive education) in the topics they are discussing, rather than those that have doctorates IN that topic??

  10. Quote Originally Posted by EESCHMan View Post
    "The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
    the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
    entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
    even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
    In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

    The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

    Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994)."

    "Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood."
    I am speaking of Universal law, not simply planetary conditions. The universe is finite and the Second Law does apply, necessarily. Nothing comes from nothing. Something can NOT come from nothing, not of itself. That's not your personal, everyday observation is it? You seem sensible so be honest with yourself and be sensible. Look, I don't belong to a church, I am not fond or religion either! But don't take it out on reality, please.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    I am speaking of Universal law, not simply planetary conditions. The universe is finite and the Second Law does apply, necessarily. Nothing comes from nothing. Something can NOT come from nothing, not of itself. That's not your personal, everyday observation is it? You seem sensible so be honest with yourself and be sensible. Look, I don't belong to a church, I am not fond or religion either! But don't take it out on reality, please.
    where do your beliefs come from (if not from church/religion)?
    Your parents?

    Apparently, God can come from nothing though...

  12. Quote Originally Posted by EESCHMan View Post
    Which would be choice a)

    So you're going to believe those who don't specialize (or have extensive education) in the topics they are discussing, rather than those that have doctorates IN that topic??
    Hey, I don't specialize! I'm a freakin physicist that only minored it chemistry!! Still, if you go here:

    http://anabolicminds.com/

    You will see my topics and product developments all over the front page, constantly. Does that mean people's gains are only imaginary? Do they just use my stuff to be "nice" to me so my feelings aren't hurt? Or, is it because I know organic medicinal and pharmaceutical chemistry better than 99.9% of the guys here, whether my education would indicate that or not on the surface? I don't know, but the fact remains that the products work and work well regardless if I am qualified to formulate them or not. Does that example help?

  13. Regarding the "evolution hoaxes":

    (Piltdownman Hoax):
    "One hoax cannot indicate the inferiority of conventional archeology, because creationists have several of their own, including Paluxy footprints, the Calaveras skull, Moab and Malachite Man, and others. More telling is how people deal with these hoaxes. When Piltdown was exposed, it stopped being used as evidence. The creationist hoaxes, however, can still be found cited as if they were real. Piltdown has been over and done with for decades, but the dishonesty of creationist hoaxes continues."

  14. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    Hey, I don't specialize! I'm a freakin physicist that only minored it chemistry!! Still, if you go here:

    http://anabolicminds.com/

    You will see my topics and product developments all over the front page, constantly. Does that mean people's gains are only imaginary? Do they just use my stuff to be "nice" to me so my feelings aren't hurt? Or, is it because I know organic medicinal and pharmaceutical chemistry better than 99.9% of the guys here, whether my education would indicate that or not on the surface? I don't know, but the fact remains that the products work and work well regardless if I am qualified to formulate them or not. Does that example help?
    and how do you know your "formulations" work?
    Because you can test them, and see results...(science)

    how do you know god created everything?

    No one has answered the Noah's Ark Question (it boggles my mind that people believe this)

  15. Quote Originally Posted by EESCHMan View Post
    where do your beliefs come from (if not from church/religion)?
    Your parents?

    Apparently, God can come from nothing though...
    No! My parents never took me to church. I'm glad too, I may have been turned off to God permanently like most of you are! Church people are often brainwash and crazy, I admit. I AM NOT DEFENDING "RELIGION" only showing the God is supported with science. I told you. I am a scientist. It was part of my studies. I was actually studying alien phenomena about that time.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    Maybe you should learn to read then! I said in the first sentence or two that "religion" had nothing to do with it, and yes, I gave plenty of science. Until you can answer the scientific questions I posed, don't bother dismissing it. Creationism is not a religion, it's an explanation of the observed universe.
    I read quite well thank you. This statement from your treatice refutes your assertion that, and I quote ""religion" had nothing to do with it". I quote you again, "Christ is the only god of any religion that actually died and rose again! The resurrection is the cornerstone of the Christian faith and what really separates Christianity from the rest." It appears that Christianity has everything to do with your position. I quote this additional statement as further evidence, since you felt the need to exclude a differing "creation" story: "Really, it seems like a no-brainer and there are no other satisfactory explanations that match the known facts and laws, unless you believe the Norse legend of creation which involves a hungry giant and a big cow and lots of fire and some other weird stuff like that. (lol)"

    I will anticipate your response and preempt with my statement that Christianity is fine and dandy and I applaud your faith, but don't say your position has nothing to do with religion when it clearly does as evidenced by your own words quoted above. It undermines your credibility.


    I stand by my assertion that "intelligent design" if you will, IS NOT A TESTABLE SCIENTIFIC THEORY. You are free to believe it or not. My discussion has nothing to do with that. It simply does not meet scientific muster. You can quote as many branches of science as you wish, but you offered ZERO data to support any scientific conclusion in your treatice. Statements such as the following quotations from your article are not evidence. In fact, they appear to me to be questions, not answers:

    "How else can you explain order and design?"
    "How then does life develop and thrive when the whole universe is in a state of decay?"
    "Would you really gamble on odds like that?"

    If you are a scientist as you claim, I am at a loss to understand how the preceeding statements would pass muster of any sort in your field of scientific endeavor.

  17. [QUOTE=mmowry;843047]
    Quote Originally Posted by jomi822 View Post
    .

    scientists- not sure how the universe was created
    religious tards- god created it the maturity level is astounding.Being a biology major Id figure you would have something more appropriate to say than that.

    personally, i am MUCH more comfortable with the scientific lack of explanation (so you do have a faith system)than something that is simply made up in a book. like the theory of evolution?
    QUOTE]
    no i dont have a faith based system, i have a fact based system, and a system based on objective observation. not stories or "faith" (which is just fanatic belief in that which cannot be proven).

    evolution is not a theory, its mechanics are.

    and it was not just "made up" in a book. that is like saying thermodynamics or organic chemistry was just made up in a book. these things are based on obversavtion. they have substance

    creation was literally thought up and written on a book....and please dont give me a line about "divine inspiration".

    you are supposed to have supporting facts and observations before you create a scientific theory.

    you cannot just create something out of thin air, and then handpick certain abnormalities and twist science around to support it. this is what is being done wiht this museum. it is an abomination

  18. Quote Originally Posted by EESCHMan View Post
    and how do you know your "formulations" work?
    Because you can test them, and see results...(science)

    how do you know god created everything?

    No one has answered the Noah's Ark Question (it boggles my mind that people believe this)
    Sir, just think outside the box for a second. It was hard for me too. It was the last place I though I would find truth. I am just asking that you reevaluate God, minus your negative preconceptions about the church. I would not come here and say all this if I honestly did not have strong reason to profess. I think the earth is quite old for example, I know about decay chains (my major was nuclear biophysics) I don't agree with a 'young' earth. I still think the Bible works though. I know you hear guys trying to stuff weird theories into their religion to make it fit, that's not AT ALL what I am trying to do. Just offering some very real facts that strongly point to the reality of creationism, thus the existence of God. That's all.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    No! My parents never took me to church. I'm glad too, I may have been turned off to God permanently like most of you are! Church people are often brainwash and crazy, I admit. I AM NOT DEFENDING "RELIGION" only showing the God is supported with science. I told you. I am a scientist. It was part of my studies. I was actually studying alien phenomena about that time.
    I'm curious as to how you came into believing what you believe...

    I wasn't raised religious, and never really even cared about this "stuff" until moving to the south (where you can't go anywhere without it hitting you in the face!)

  20. "Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero (Guth 1997, 9-12,271-276; Tryon 1973)."

  21. Quote Originally Posted by Jumper View Post
    I read quite well thank you. This statement from your treatice refutes your assertion that, and I quote ""religion" had nothing to do with it". I quote you again, "Christ is the only god of any religion that actually died and rose again! The resurrection is the cornerstone of the Christian faith and what really separates Christianity from the rest." It appears that Christianity has everything to do with your position. I quote this additional statement as further evidence, since you felt the need to exclude a differing "creation" story: "Really, it seems like a no-brainer and there are no other satisfactory explanations that match the known facts and laws, unless you believe the Norse legend of creation which involves a hungry giant and a big cow and lots of fire and some other weird stuff like that. (lol)"

    I will anticipate your response and preempt with my statement that Christianity is fine and dandy and I applaud your faith, but don't say your position has nothing to do with religion when it clearly does as evidenced by your own words quoted above. It undermines your credibility.


    I stand by my assertion that "intelligent design" if you will, IS NOT A TESTABLE SCIENTIFIC THEORY. You are free to believe it or not. My discussion has nothing to do with that. It simply does not meet scientific muster. You can quote as many branches of science as you wish, but you offered ZERO data to support any scientific conclusion in your treatice. Statements such as the following quotations from your article are not evidence. In fact, they appear to me to be questions, not answers:

    "How else can you explain order and design?"
    "How then does life develop and thrive when the whole universe is in a state of decay?"
    "Would you really gamble on odds like that?"

    If you are a scientist as you claim, I am at a loss to understand how the preceeding statements would pass muster of any sort in your field of scientific endeavor.
    I am trying to speak to the laymen friend, not formally address a room of my peers. I gave only a brief overview that was designed not to spoon feed a man like the church might but stimulate general interest that you could elaborate on yourself if it interested you. If you have a need for truth, you will investigate the claims. Otherwise, just dismiss them and I am sorry if I wasted your time or offended you.

    And yes, I used the word religion in the article but your missing my point. I am not pushing a specific agenda or church or asking for money or giving you some funky doctrine to follow! Maybe I was too vague when I said 'religion' and just assumed we were on the same wave. Again, I am not here to offend, convert or whatever. Just being sincere and honest about a few truths I found that I shared for no other reason but that.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by EESCHMan View Post
    "Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero (Guth 1997, 9-12,271-276; Tryon 1973)."
    Interestingly, that same force (gravitation) is so fine tuned to support life that if you stretched a ruler along the entire length of the universe (at least 15 billion light years) and pick one spot on that spectrum where gravitation would have to be dialed to support life, if you moved that spot over an inch in either direction life could not exist. The universe is that fine tuned. The odds are 1 in ten thousand billion billion. Consider the Cosmological Constant, same thing (much higher odds actually) so now all these dials are perfectly tuned for life not just separately but in coordination with each other! Coincidence? The man that thinks so has a far greater faith that I, I am a scientist. I'll go with the blatantly better odds! Is see design, no doubt.

  23. What it really boils down to is that evolution does nothing but provide excuses. People use these excuses to deny the existence of a creator. By denying the existence of a creator it enables the person to justify themselves doing things that would be considered by a Bible believing Christian to be sin. With no absolute authority there is no justification for conscience. No one can prove that the fossils that have been dug up by scientists over the years are for sure from millions of years ago as they claim. They use what is called carbon dating which uses the carbon decay of fossils assumed to be of a certain age to compare with the fossil decay of other items they wish to date. What you have to ask yourself is this: Do I want to take a chance with where I will spend eternity based on a Hypothesis? Yes, I did say hypothesis. A theory is defined as: A comprehensive explanation of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation and has gained general acceptance within the scientific community but has not yet been decisively proven. Evolution has not been observed and therefore cannot be classified as a theory.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    Interestingly, that same force (gravitation) is so fine tuned to support life that if you stretched a ruler along the entire length of the universe (at least 15 billion light years) and pick one spot on that spectrum where gravitation would have to be dialed to support life, if you moved that spot over an inch in either direction life could not exist. The universe is that fine tuned. The odds are 1 in ten thousand billion billion. Consider the Cosmological Constant, same thing (much higher odds actually) so now all these dials are perfectly tuned for life not just separately but in coordination with each other! Coincidence? The man that thinks so has a far greater faith that I, I am a scientist. I'll go with the blatantly better odds! Is see design, no doubt.
    After this I have to go night-night...

    The cosmos is fine-tuned to permit human life. If any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, life would be impossible. (This claim is also known as the weak anthropic principle.)

    "The claim assumes life in its present form is a given; it applies not to life but to life only as we know it. The same outcome results if life is fine-tuned to the cosmos.

    We do not know what fundamental conditions would rule out any possibility of any life. For all we know, there might be intelligent beings in another universe arguing that if fundamental constants were only slightly different, then the absence of free quarks and the extreme weakness of gravity would make life impossible.

    Indeed, many examples of fine-tuning are evidence that life is fine-tuned to the cosmos, not vice versa. This is exactly what evolution proposes.


    If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life such an extremely rare part of it?


    Many fine-tuning claims are based on numbers being the "same order of magnitude," but this phrase gets stretched beyond its original meaning to buttress design arguments; sometimes numbers more than one-thousandfold different are called the same order of magnitude (Klee 2002).

    How fine is "fine" anyway? That question can only be answered by a human judgment call, which reduces or removes objective value from the anthropic principle argument.


    The fine-tuning claim is weakened by the fact that some physical constants are dependent on others, so the anthropic principle may rest on only a very few initial conditions that are really fundamental (Kane et al. 2000). It is further weakened by the fact that different initial conditions sometimes lead to essentially the same outcomes, as with the initial mass of stars and their formation of heavy metals (Nakamura et al. 1997), or that the tuning may not be very fine, as with the resonance window for helium fusion within the sun (Livio et al. 1989). For all we know, a universe substantially different from ours may be improbable or even impossible.


    If part of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to think about it. There is nothing to rule out the possibility of multiple universes, most of which would be unsuitable for life. We happen to find ourselves in one where life is conveniently possible because we cannot very well be anywhere else.


    Intelligent design is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Fine tuning says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined. (The scarcity of life and multi-billion-year delay in it appearing argue against life being a motive.) Fine-tuning, if it exists, may result from other causes, as yet unknown, or for no reason at all (Drange 2000).


    In fact, the anthropic principle is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it. "

  25. Quote Originally Posted by brywal312 View Post
    What it really boils down to is that evolution does nothing but provide excuses. People use these excuses to deny the existence of a creator. By denying the existence of a creator it enables the person to justify themselves doing things that would be considered by a Bible believing Christian to be sin. With no absolute authority there is no justification for conscience. No one can prove that the fossils that have been dug up by scientists over the years are for sure from millions of years ago as they claim. They use what is called carbon dating which uses the carbon decay of fossils assumed to be of a certain age to compare with the fossil decay of other items they wish to date. What you have to ask yourself is this: Do I want to take a chance with where I will spend eternity based on a Hypothesis? Yes, I did say hypothesis. A theory is defined as: A comprehensive explanation of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation and has gained general acceptance within the scientific community but has not yet been decisively proven. Evolution has not been observed and therefore cannot be classified as a theory.
    Ugh...can't go to bed yet...

    1."By denying the existence of a creator it enables the person to justify themselves doing things that would be considered by a Bible believing Christian to be sin. With no absolute authority there is no justification for conscience.

    Umm...I don't believe in a creator and I'm not going around killing people...People have a conscience regardless of whether or not they believe in a god.

    2. There are many different ways of dating fossils, etc and they all come up with the same dates.


    3. "The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). "

    "Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming. "

  26. Quote Originally Posted by EESCHMan View Post
    In fact, the anthropic principle is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it. "
    If God created life in a universe whose conditions did not allow for it then that would not require any faith to believe in creation. Creation vs evolution is an unstoppable force hitting an immovable object. If an evolutionist denies the existence of a creator completely then he leaves no room to be convinced otherwise because by rejecting the existence of a creator then he is directly denying the validity of the Bible. Likewise if a Christian is completely convinced of the existence of a creator there is no way he can be convinced otherwise because in order to accept evolution you MUST deny the existence of God because you must deny the validity of the Bible. IMO there is no way that any book can be written that explains every question man has down to the finest detail like the Bible does.

  27. Quote Originally Posted by EESCHMan View Post

    Umm...I don't believe in a creator and I'm not going around killing people...People have a conscience regardless of whether or not they believe in a god.
    Explain how you evolved this conscience.

  28. Quote Originally Posted by EESCHMan View Post
    ... If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life such an extremely rare part of it? ...
    Ah, the dreaded Goldie Lox argument!

    The only reason man notices the fine tuning is because he is here to observe it. If it were any other way, life would not have developed and thus man would not even be here to ask why.

    You are correct, maybe we observe order only because we exist in a universe with favorable conditions that foster it, but it still does not offer the imperative for it's existence in the first place. What was the initiative? If it had a start, it had a cause. If there is no beginning or end, a creator is not needed, but entropy shows that we are not in a static condition. It seems you are squirming to deny God in the face of clear support. Do not let it be for moral reasons. Don't deny God and make excuses because you reject his system. He has rules and protocols for you sure, but they with your best interests at heart obviously. How can you argue that you know what you need better than the one who made you? It's ludicrous. He is not what you have been led to believe I can assure you so please stop thinking 'restrictions' automatically. Just the opposite, God seeks to liberate. He is the ultimate liberal when you look at the whole universe and realize the Bible says he placed earth at the center and favored us alone. The rest is only designed to display his glory! That blows my mind.

  29. Quote Originally Posted by DR.D View Post
    Interestingly, that same force (gravitation) is so fine tuned to support life that if you stretched a ruler along the entire length of the universe (at least 15 billion light years) and pick one spot on that spectrum where gravitation would have to be dialed to support life, if you moved that spot over an inch in either direction life could not exist. The universe is that fine tuned. The odds are 1 in ten thousand billion billion. Consider the Cosmological Constant, same thing (much higher odds actually) so now all these dials are perfectly tuned for life not just separately but in coordination with each other! Coincidence? The man that thinks so has a far greater faith that I, I am a scientist. I'll go with the blatantly better odds! Is see design, no doubt.
    if you believe the universe is either ageless, eternal, or constant than it doesnt matter how small the odds are...it is guaranteed to happen at some point.

    if the universe does in fact have a life span, dies, and then recreates itself, than the above statement still holds true.

  30. just throwing it out there, is it possible there is an explanation for the unexplained besides just saying "god".
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. What do you eat in the middle of the night?
    By pcn in forum Supplements
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-18-2005, 09:38 PM
  2. Dbol In The Middle of a Cycle?
    By TheMyth in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-26-2005, 01:54 AM
  3. traveling abroad in the middle of my cycle...
    By LilDon in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-12-2005, 09:44 PM
  4. Holding a 2 second contraction in the middle of rep?
    By TheUsual in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-25-2005, 01:17 AM
  5. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-31-2004, 03:30 PM
Log in
Log in